From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from xry111.site (xry111.site [89.208.246.23]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EE0FD384AB47; Wed, 8 May 2024 09:43:44 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org EE0FD384AB47 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=reject dis=none) header.from=xry111.site Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=xry111.site ARC-Filter: OpenARC Filter v1.0.0 sourceware.org EE0FD384AB47 Authentication-Results: server2.sourceware.org; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=89.208.246.23 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1715161426; cv=none; b=C+paBpZWLb0Uj9rzNpsUYWtF+maICCiq+JA+cHNgebaJby3XsKe5isEl2xQgo96RxK7/fuMXchc2zWXtbyX4yO2QEhkSQfBdOwD3SsYs6klHXvE83ACzjs9v7tVoLrOCy7toLuHPNUY7ES6XbeZ1zN2Qrw+PeJLlf9W/rq8xEKc= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1715161426; c=relaxed/simple; bh=Pd+oRnYfSEYgl4jQXmsz8l+HfxM2WcM03Rmakn/V+Ac=; h=DKIM-Signature:Message-ID:Subject:From:To:Date:MIME-Version; b=ivgRMA9Qeu1sH+jj+IqNd0o7fJIIPD1Zwpl9Fg9ORtG31LP6JyrTu7PvAP+OE572Cg/sTFWtyEL2r5MrtMaATIZnwLwp41VYFSK939+Mx+ab9XwauV06ujONcUIGIOYYOiFxcqfd/gM5iNtY2J+QT24yIXEp3nnxKn0jhNWMNbY= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; server2.sourceware.org DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=xry111.site; s=default; t=1715161423; bh=Pd+oRnYfSEYgl4jQXmsz8l+HfxM2WcM03Rmakn/V+Ac=; h=Subject:From:To:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=C6dawa2QojWUjN3aFyN6tMBmpN0OhHOLPCdjdsa/aqsIJBYdzWJJFs/HubuDAfLE8 FN3PKvWj+0XQfDsHnFsoYn3LhM3MuxG1+CR07TF6I2aLNikz3inoKF+W6i0ckkIGOj Ji+wvoUroRe37VtRdky2FYhoT6rGD5Ut0ROCyX64= Received: from [192.168.124.11] (unknown [113.200.174.68]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature ECDSA (P-384) server-digest SHA384) (Client did not present a certificate) (Authenticated sender: xry111@xry111.site) by xry111.site (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D66451A3FDF; Wed, 8 May 2024 05:43:40 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <7f65fd9ab40111d1048ed5c9e9447201bee63f26.camel@xry111.site> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] gdb: Remove Itanium (IA-64) architecture From: Xi Ruoyao To: Tiezhu Yang , binutils@sourceware.org, gdb-patches@sourceware.org Cc: Jim Wilson , Jeff Johnston , Kevin Buettner Date: Wed, 08 May 2024 17:43:36 +0800 In-Reply-To: <20240508092911.24823-3-yangtiezhu@loongson.cn> References: <20240508092911.24823-1-yangtiezhu@loongson.cn> <20240508092911.24823-3-yangtiezhu@loongson.cn> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable User-Agent: Evolution 3.52.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,LIKELY_SPAM_FROM,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS,TXREP autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: On Wed, 2024-05-08 at 17:29 +0800, Tiezhu Yang wrote: > The Itanium architecture is obsolete, after the upstream Linux kernel > commit cf8e8658100d ("arch: Remove Itanium (IA-64) architecture"), the > IA-64 port has been removed from the Linux kernel, so also remove the > IA-64 specific code from gdb. The reasoning is incorrect. The dependency chain of a port is: - Upstream GCC needs upstream Binutils - Upstream Linux kernel needs upstream GCC - Upstream Glibc needs upstream Linux kernel So the removal of IA64 from the Linux kernel means we should remove it from Glibc, but you cannot reversely traverse the dependency chain and claim it should be removed from GCC or Binutils. Note that I don't mean IA64 shouldn't be removed. I just mean the reasoning is incorrect, the conclusion may be correct or not. --=20 Xi Ruoyao School of Aerospace Science and Technology, Xidian University